True Christians and the heathens,
Realtive to this question, the Holy Bible (KJV) is a book of fact and science.
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3 :12).
The Christian polemicist frequently is confronted with the problem of the scientific "errors" in Scripture, especially in its first eleven chapters. Often he is tempted to resort to the solution of neo-orthodoxy and to protest that "the Bible is, after all, not a textbook of science, but rather of religion." "It is meant to tell us the fact of creation, not the method of creation; it tells us who is Creator, not when or how He created. It points us to a confrontation with the Creator, not an understanding of earth history."
It is obvious, of course, that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events.
This type of apologetic device is both logically unsatisfactory and evangelistically unfruitful. How can an inquirer be led to saving faith in the divine Word if the context in which that Word is found is filled with error? How can he trust the Bible to speak truly when it tells of salvation and heaven and eternity which he is completely unable to verify empirically he finds that data which are subject to test are fallacious? Surely if God is really omnipotent and omniscient, He is as well able to speak with full truth and perspicuity when He speaks of earthly things as when He speaks of heavenly things.
IMPORTANCE OF BASIC PRESUPPOSITIONS
It is salutary for anyone dealing with questions of this sort to recognize the essential nature of faith and presuppositions in his reasonings. "Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith.
This faith may be in the doctrine of uniformity, which assumes that the present processes may be extrapolated indefinitely into the past or future and that therefore "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:4). If one, because of his basic presupposition, wishes to believe in uniformity in this way, it is logically possible for him to do so and to explain all the pertinent data in this context. He can determine the ages of rocks and suns by projecting present rates of change into the limitless past; he can develop theories about the evolution of species and life and galaxies and chemical elements and everything in the universe, if he wishes, and no one can prove him wrong, for the simple reason that these events are not reproducible and therefore not subject to scientific checking. The most that can be done is to argue that his theories are either probable or improbable on the premise of his own uniformitarian presupposition, depending upon the logical consistency of the superstructure he has erected upon this foundation. But this is all within the context of his pure assumption faith uniformity.
One can equally logically start with some other assumption and then develop his explanations of the data within that framework. For example, one may assume, if he wishes, that all things in the universe were created by divine fiat five minutes ago. He could say that our apparent memories of earlier events were also created five minutes ago, and once again, no one could prove him wrong. He had logically explained all the data that exist, given his initial premise. As a matter of fact, one could assume, if he wishes, that all existence is illusory, a disease of mortal mind.
The important point, here, is that one may pretty well believe what he wants to believe. He can erect a logical system within which he can explain all the physical data upon any one of any number of mutually exclusive and contradictory premises.
But we are concerned here mainly with the Biblical framework, and with the assumption that the Bible is truly the Word of God as it claims to be. If one starts with the presupposition that God has written the Bible as His own perfect revelation of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the world, then it again is perfectly possible to correlate all the physical data of science and history within that framework. The decision as to which presupposition leads to the most logical and self-consistent system of interpretation must necessarily be based on statistical arguments, and these are notoriously subjective in nature. Thus, in the last analysis, it is a spiritual and moral decision rather than a scientific decision. One can interpret everything in terms of Biblical creationism and catastrophism or in terms of evolutionary uniformitarianism, and all the pertinent data can be understood, at least in broad outline, within the framework of either system. Our concern here is simply to show that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to do so. Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28).
THE BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK
Those who, by faith, accept the Biblical cosmogony, do so for a perfectly good reason. It is obviously impossible to prove that God does not exist. There is, at the very least, a good possibility that He does exist. If so, it follows that all things are His creatures. The very minds with which we attempt to develop logical thought-structures are created by Him and must operate within the limitations which He has set upon them. It is therefore necessary, if we would understand anything of the true origin, purpose, and destiny of the world and of ourselves, for us to look to God for His own revelation of these things. God can only be known as He wills to be known.
The Bible claims, in numerous ways, to be God's unique revelation. It was accepted as such by Jesus Christ, who also claimed to be God incarnate, and who vindicated His claim by His uniquely perfect life, His atoning death, and especially by His glorious bodily resurrection from death.
The Bible, with this perfect claim to absolute divine authority does very clearly establish a framework of interpretation within which men are expected to formulate their understanding of the data of science. It is most reasonable and most gracious of God so to do, since it is quite impossible for man, with his study of present processes, to know anything for certain about the prehistoric past or the eschatological future. Only God can know these things, and we are able to know the truth about these matters only through faith in God's statements concerning them. Therefore, the Bible-believing Christian goes to the Bible for his basic orientation in all departments of truth. The Bible is his textbook of science as well as his guide to spiritual truth.
In its very structure, in fact, the Scriptures provide fundamental perspective on the entire Bible-science question. The word Bible means simply book, and it is significant that the first mention of book in the Old Testament speaks of the "origins of Adam" (Genesis 5:1), and the first mention of book in the New Testament speaks of the "origin of Jesus Christ" (Matthew 1:1) . The true book, therefore, by implication, is concerned essentially with the first Adam and the second Adam, and the relation between the two. It is also meaningful that the final mention of book in the Bible is in Revelation 22:19, speaking of the "book of this prophecy" and the "book of life," with a grave warning against tampering with the words of the Book.
The word science is essentially synonymous with knowledge, and is so used in Scripture. The first mention of knowledge in the Bible, in Genesis 2:9, is in connection with the "tree of knowledge." One might paraphrase by saying that God warned man against partaking of the "tree of science." There were to be prescribed limits within which man was to exercise dominion over the world; for his own good, he was not intended to venture outside these bounds and know in an experimental fashion the "science of good and evil." By contrast, the first use of knowledge in the New Testament, in Luke 1:77, speaks of the "knowledge (Greek, gnosis) of salvation," and the final mention speaks of the "knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18).
It is instructive also to compare the words knowledge and wisdom. The former has to do primarily with awareness of facts, whereas the latter has to do with interpretation and correlation and explanation of facts. They are in general parallel to what we mean by our technical words science and philosophy. This also corresponds with their usage in Scripture. In the New Testament knowledge is normally the translation of the Greek gnosis or epignosis. In one passage ( I Timothy 6:20) it is actually translated, in the KJV, by science, referring to the opposition of "science falsely so-
